King James Criticism

But James is not always praised and his criticism is often based on two of his policies: the Irish plantation and the reformation of the Scottish Kirk both, some believe, being major factors in the explosion of the Civil War in the 1640s. It is true that if James was a flexible monarch who favored stability he did tried to pass more revolutionary policies. Notably towards James’s other major source of dislike: the Scottish Kirk. If James did not like the English Parliament he was on the other hand very fond of the English Church. It was a Calvinist church supervised by bishops and had the king as the head of the church while in Scotland the Scottish kirk was trying to get rid of bishops and parishes. Even during his time as King of Scotland James did not agree with the Scottish Kirk. He try to reform it with the 5 Articles of Perth when he came back in 1617 but …show more content…
However his rule was highly influenced by his personality and his ability to negotiate and to concede to his opponents, a quality his successor did not possess. Contrary to many rulers (especially contrary to his direct predecessor and follower) James was less radical and did not imposed, as forcefully as some others might have done, his principles or idea on his people to their breaking point. This had, for a long time, been seen as a weakness but his recent rehabilitation rather points out that this attitude proved efficient and the key to James success. Nowadays James implication in the civil wars of the 1640s is lessened and the fault is mostly accorded to his son Charles, who was stricter and refused many of his father's ideologies or opinions. There is no denying that James's problematic religious policies participated in the growing instability and the rising tensions of the kingdoms but it may not have reached the breaking point had Charles been more